Melissa McEwan has now joined Amanda Marcotte in dropping from the Edwards campaign blog. Rightly they saw that they were only hurting the Edwards campaign, now if only John Edwards could see that his presence on his own ticket is also hurting his chances.
Like I’ve said here (I think) and elsewhere as an atheist I would never demand someone, say the curt jester, be removed his job simply because of his off-duty personal beliefs, even if they were anti-atheist.
Why? because I am morally superior to you when it comes to free speech 🙂
Are you telling me you think someone who ignores what they believe in order to do the job is able to do a good job? Ummm…okay. And this makes sense how? Yeah, I’m personally opposed to slavery, but since its the law, I will defend it. Good thing good old Abe didn’t think that way, huh? It is the men and women who has stood up for what they believed in, despite it being contrary to the law of the land, that changed this country for the better. I would expect someone who carries any personal belief, good or bad, to carry that belief with them to any job, including the whitehouse. If they do not, they are lying to themselves and therefore would lie to the rest of us without hesitation.
Anyone who holds hatred, bigotry, or prejudice in their heart cannot help but have their actions tainted by it.
Tell me, would you vote for a man who’s personal convictions included the belief that homosexuality is disgusting, and that a woman’s right to vote should be revoked? What if he claimed that these beliefs wouldn’t effect his job as president? Sounds a bit rediculous, doesn’t it?
But Hoodlam do you not believe in equal treatment?
If a campaign aid for a Republican used racial epithets in a chat room or was a holocaust denier it would be expected, nay demanded that they would be fired and their public career would be over. And in Maryland, a low level government offical who aired his opiniont that homosexual activity is sinful was fired. Why do you think that Catholics should put up with rude KKK level intolerance directed at them?
So 2 down 1 to go! That one being Edwards. I wonder how many more bigots this guy has working for him? Who wants a President who provides safe-harbour to bigotry of any kind? If Edwards has shown the world he is willing to accomodate anti-Catholic, anti-Christian beliefs in his campaign, imagine what he would do with all the power of the White House. There wouldn’t be much stopping his aides from persecuting whomever they wanted, especially those good Catholics.
Yes Amy, I frequently have to set aside my personal beliefs when dealing with religious issues. 🙂
Agatha, as long as those alleged exchanges occurred on his own time, dime, and did not pose the risk of endangering people then their removals were wrong.
Nonsense Scott, I just think people should be able to speak their minds without fears of a viewpoint oriented PC lynch mob, in this case Catholics, hounding them from a job.
I would feel the same way if one of the commenters here got harrassed from their position because of remarks made here :).
Nonsense Scott, I just think people should be able to speak their minds without fears of a viewpoint oriented PC lynch mob, in this case Catholics, hounding them from a job.
They are still allowed to speak their minds. Losing a job for what comes out of your mind naturally goes with the territory. I don’t see anything from these bloggers indicating fear of a lynch mob. They left because it was the prudent thing to do.
I can assure you that if I say or do something OUTSIDE my job that reflects negatively on the organization for which I work, I can expect consequences, including being fired.
I don’t think that this is unfair, since I work FOR the organization, not despite it.
I am curious, though, what are the personal beliefs that you put aside when discussing religious issues? It seems to me that you are totally driven by those beliefs. What am I missing?
“Like I’ve said here (I think) and elsewhere as an atheist I would never demand someone, say the curt jester, be removed his job simply because of his off-duty personal beliefs, even if they were anti-atheist. Why? because I am morally superior to you when it comes to free speech :)”
I’m not sure if you intended this humorously or not, but you cannot make a value judgement about people who use their free speech to demand that other people be fired for using their free speech. To criticize such a person would be to criticize their free speech, so you have violated your own dogma of tolerance and unrestricted expression of opinion, making you morally inferior even to the most absurd of moral crusaders.
Such is the morass of meaningless and valueless combinations of letters that secularism, scientism, materialism, and atheism leave us. In other words – you must either tolerate everything, or have some rational basis for making value judgements that lead to tolerance or intolerance.
“First they came for the Nazis
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Nazi.
Then they came for the Klansmen
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Klansmen.
Then they came for the college Republicans
and I did not speak out
because I was not a college Republican.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.”
Scott, it is only part of the territory because a digital mob hounded after them. I notice you all were silent when Bill was spouting off about the “Christanity hating Jews”, thus highlighting your own cafeteria morality.
I put aside my own beliefs, like my atheism, and just deal dispassionately deal with the issues at hand. I get frequent praise when I do this, so I must be good at it.
Ubi, I never said you could not criticize him, I just said that harrassing people at their jobs for their private personal beliefs that are irrelevant is wrong. I doubt you were appreciate if you were fired for opposing Plan -B or abortion on your time?
“I can assure you that if I say or do something OUTSIDE my job that reflects negatively on the organization for which I work, I can expect consequences, including being fired. “
Actually, there are limits on how far this can go.
Hoodlum, you don’t just want freedom of speech as a absolute principle…you want freedom from responsibility of speech! Freedom of speech isn’t an absolute. You cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater for example. You can’t expect people will be emotionally nuetral to what anyone says. You can’t perjure yourself in a court of law. Speech, as all our faculies, has consequences. Now granted, I halfway agree with you in that we have way too thin-skinned as a society. If these two girls want to write horrific anti-Christian screeds..oh well. It isn’t like that hasn’t happened before. Will those screeds affect Edwards’ campaign? Yes. Oh well. I have been bemused that we now have little Travis Bickle subgroups rushing to be offended even by commercials on TV (the progressive car commercials were prophetic).
I think we could stand to be a bit more thick-skinned but I don’t think we need laud hate either.
But, your ” I’m morally superior when it comes to free speech” thing is not true. It is not moral to ignore consequence for actions.
Hoodlum as an employee of a Catholic Radio Station I assure you that what I do in my free time does have direct consequences on my employment and its continuance.
I assure you if someone were to accuse me of scandalous behavior, I would end up having a meeting discussing whether I was the right person for my job. Just so, I expect that if employees in a political business express by words or actions an inability to treat segments of the population correctly, that their employment would similarly be reevaluated.
16 comments
Like I’ve said here (I think) and elsewhere as an atheist I would never demand someone, say the curt jester, be removed his job simply because of his off-duty personal beliefs, even if they were anti-atheist.
Why? because I am morally superior to you when it comes to free speech 🙂
Are you telling me you think someone who ignores what they believe in order to do the job is able to do a good job? Ummm…okay. And this makes sense how? Yeah, I’m personally opposed to slavery, but since its the law, I will defend it. Good thing good old Abe didn’t think that way, huh? It is the men and women who has stood up for what they believed in, despite it being contrary to the law of the land, that changed this country for the better. I would expect someone who carries any personal belief, good or bad, to carry that belief with them to any job, including the whitehouse. If they do not, they are lying to themselves and therefore would lie to the rest of us without hesitation.
Anyone who holds hatred, bigotry, or prejudice in their heart cannot help but have their actions tainted by it.
Tell me, would you vote for a man who’s personal convictions included the belief that homosexuality is disgusting, and that a woman’s right to vote should be revoked? What if he claimed that these beliefs wouldn’t effect his job as president? Sounds a bit rediculous, doesn’t it?
But Hoodlam do you not believe in equal treatment?
If a campaign aid for a Republican used racial epithets in a chat room or was a holocaust denier it would be expected, nay demanded that they would be fired and their public career would be over. And in Maryland, a low level government offical who aired his opiniont that homosexual activity is sinful was fired. Why do you think that Catholics should put up with rude KKK level intolerance directed at them?
Hoodlum thinks freedom means freedom from any consequences for one’s convictions. What a wimpy world-view.
The funniest tagline in this whole affair was coined by Carl Olson at Insight Scoop:
“Free to yell ‘Jeebus’ once again.”
So 2 down 1 to go! That one being Edwards. I wonder how many more bigots this guy has working for him? Who wants a President who provides safe-harbour to bigotry of any kind? If Edwards has shown the world he is willing to accomodate anti-Catholic, anti-Christian beliefs in his campaign, imagine what he would do with all the power of the White House. There wouldn’t be much stopping his aides from persecuting whomever they wanted, especially those good Catholics.
Yes Amy, I frequently have to set aside my personal beliefs when dealing with religious issues. 🙂
Agatha, as long as those alleged exchanges occurred on his own time, dime, and did not pose the risk of endangering people then their removals were wrong.
Nonsense Scott, I just think people should be able to speak their minds without fears of a viewpoint oriented PC lynch mob, in this case Catholics, hounding them from a job.
I would feel the same way if one of the commenters here got harrassed from their position because of remarks made here :).
Nonsense Scott, I just think people should be able to speak their minds without fears of a viewpoint oriented PC lynch mob, in this case Catholics, hounding them from a job.
They are still allowed to speak their minds. Losing a job for what comes out of your mind naturally goes with the territory. I don’t see anything from these bloggers indicating fear of a lynch mob. They left because it was the prudent thing to do.
Hoodlum,
I can assure you that if I say or do something OUTSIDE my job that reflects negatively on the organization for which I work, I can expect consequences, including being fired.
I don’t think that this is unfair, since I work FOR the organization, not despite it.
I am curious, though, what are the personal beliefs that you put aside when discussing religious issues? It seems to me that you are totally driven by those beliefs. What am I missing?
Per Hoodlum:
“Like I’ve said here (I think) and elsewhere as an atheist I would never demand someone, say the curt jester, be removed his job simply because of his off-duty personal beliefs, even if they were anti-atheist. Why? because I am morally superior to you when it comes to free speech :)”
I’m not sure if you intended this humorously or not, but you cannot make a value judgement about people who use their free speech to demand that other people be fired for using their free speech. To criticize such a person would be to criticize their free speech, so you have violated your own dogma of tolerance and unrestricted expression of opinion, making you morally inferior even to the most absurd of moral crusaders.
Such is the morass of meaningless and valueless combinations of letters that secularism, scientism, materialism, and atheism leave us. In other words – you must either tolerate everything, or have some rational basis for making value judgements that lead to tolerance or intolerance.
“First they came for the Nazis
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Nazi.
Then they came for the Klansmen
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Klansmen.
Then they came for the college Republicans
and I did not speak out
because I was not a college Republican.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.”
😉
Scott, it is only part of the territory because a digital mob hounded after them. I notice you all were silent when Bill was spouting off about the “Christanity hating Jews”, thus highlighting your own cafeteria morality.
I put aside my own beliefs, like my atheism, and just deal dispassionately deal with the issues at hand. I get frequent praise when I do this, so I must be good at it.
Ubi, I never said you could not criticize him, I just said that harrassing people at their jobs for their private personal beliefs that are irrelevant is wrong. I doubt you were appreciate if you were fired for opposing Plan -B or abortion on your time?
“I can assure you that if I say or do something OUTSIDE my job that reflects negatively on the organization for which I work, I can expect consequences, including being fired. “
Actually, there are limits on how far this can go.
Hoodlum, you don’t just want freedom of speech as a absolute principle…you want freedom from responsibility of speech! Freedom of speech isn’t an absolute. You cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater for example. You can’t expect people will be emotionally nuetral to what anyone says. You can’t perjure yourself in a court of law. Speech, as all our faculies, has consequences. Now granted, I halfway agree with you in that we have way too thin-skinned as a society. If these two girls want to write horrific anti-Christian screeds..oh well. It isn’t like that hasn’t happened before. Will those screeds affect Edwards’ campaign? Yes. Oh well. I have been bemused that we now have little Travis Bickle subgroups rushing to be offended even by commercials on TV (the progressive car commercials were prophetic).
I think we could stand to be a bit more thick-skinned but I don’t think we need laud hate either.
But, your ” I’m morally superior when it comes to free speech” thing is not true. It is not moral to ignore consequence for actions.
Amen.
She resigned that’s great news!
I believe in free speech. But those that use it irresponsibly should be held accountable for them.
Hoodlum as an employee of a Catholic Radio Station I assure you that what I do in my free time does have direct consequences on my employment and its continuance.
I assure you if someone were to accuse me of scandalous behavior, I would end up having a meeting discussing whether I was the right person for my job. Just so, I expect that if employees in a political business express by words or actions an inability to treat segments of the population correctly, that their employment would similarly be reevaluated.
Hoodie, be happy! You’re relatively free!
Hoodlum:
what are those limits? And, once again, what personal beliefs do you put aside?
Contrary to Joanne, I don’t think you are relatively free, I think you are relatively blind, which is why we all keep praying for you.